Smooth said earlier that the fall of bitcoin will be harsh for all the cryptoland (or something like this - I do not have time to search for the exact wordings because I am too focused on buying Moneros).
I tend to disagree, the fall of bitcoin might give room for other coins (creative destruction) to rise and it might force the big bitcoin holders to significiantly increase their holdings in altcoins (of course some of their bitcoins will be liquidated to plain fiat also but I doubt not all).
I think I said that a while back in the context of an lack of speculative enthusiasm for crypto generally, and that has mostly played out over the past 18 months or so. Monero hasn't really gone anywhere against the backdrop of a weak Bitcoin market, and neither have most other coins. If you are referring to the comments about Bitcoin failing or being surpassed by another coin (which is FAR from happening at this point of course) being very bad for crypto overall, I don't think I've ever said that and i don't particularly believe it. But it is a popular view among intelligent people so it deserves some consideration. |
|
|
|
How many coins remain for mining ?
Roughly 4.9% of the total. |
|
|
|
This coin is very interesting. I see great things I can feel it. I will continue to support Bytecoin. I see it being adopted one day its inevitable. Also, as many before me have stated, THE WORLD DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND BITCOINTALK FORUM! Other people/investors(with more money that KLONE, NASdaq and jwinterm combined) will be looking from the outside and not commenting here  Those people know how to do due diligence, won't be interested in this mess either, and indeed most of those major investors employ or will employ domain experts who do most certainly know about and read or have read bitcointalk. And bitcointalk isn't even the point. Regardless of where the discussion goes, there will be people who will look at the history, the red flags, the fabrications and fraudulent claims, and reach the same conclusions. That ridiculous story about big dumb investors coming to sink enormous sums of money into a coin without researching the history and is a standard shitcoin con job meant to rip off naive crypto investors: "We'll get mass adoption because no one cares what bitcointalk thinks. Buy now!!!" Substitute BCN for Dash in this insightful post and the exact same principles apply: Very quick diagnosis. The dash instamine matters because: even though BTC by all accounts had a fair launch, it still enjoys the label of ponzi by some in the media and still has yet to jump any mass adoption hurdles. What do you think this same media will do if dash were to make a play as BTC's replacement? Do you think a coin that looks, smells, and most importantly reads in Evan's own quotation marks as a fraud is going to be ushered to the throne without a massive media assault? Because billionaires and governments like having their money replaced by a top heavy band of pseudo-cypherpunks with the moral compass of a fraternity next to a rohypnol factory. So yes, dash supporter, everyone is paid to get you, but ironically by your own hand. And if you think it is bad now, you have no idea of the shit storm that would be leveled at you if you even got a whiff of BTC's market cap.
If Evan had really wanted to replace BTC, he would have foreseen every thing I just outlined and realized there were only two options: 1. a fair relaunch or 2. admit it was an instamine and said "a dev has got to get paid how a dev has got to get paid". He didn't--he wanted the benefit of an instamine without the perception of greed, but didn't think far enough ahead to see his creation as a replacement for BTC and what the consequences of his actions would be if he ever truly got on the same playing field as BTC. The fact that his coin made it to the top five with this hanging over its head should be congratulations enough--the market rewarding his misplayed strategy with being the heir to Satoshi's kingdom is a pipe-dream wrapped in rainbows flecked with fairy dust.
|
|
|
|
I used to think some variant of Peter R's theory made the most sense. What I could never quite reconcile, though, was that there was no blockchain trail of stolen coins in 2011. So I figured that maybe the 2011 hack involved the hackers copying a bunch of code, finding exploits a while later (or having installed a backdoor), and then slowly bleeding Gox in relatively small amounts over the years.
One easy way to reconcile this is that the coins were not stolen but just lost: private keys erased with no usable backup, either by a hacker (vandalism) or by Karpeles himself (error). But honestly, reading that Ashley Barr thread makes me think that the whole thing more likely has a far simpler explanation; ie, Karpeles just spent a few million of the fiat deposits that came into the bank account (which was his personal account(!)) frivolously, while crediting traders with BTC. Given prices at the time (mid-2011 through 2012), it would only have taken <$5m in lavish "corporate" spending to run up ~550,000BTC in liabilities. Unfortunately there's a long history of startups proving that it's not hard to blow a few million bucks on dumb stuff.
In general terms the idea he spent the money is plausible but the low level specifics don't work. He would have had to credit them with phoney fiat, not BTC. Without some other fraud, this would not affect the balance of BTC on the exchange. |
|
|
|
Hello,
Trying to understand more about the monero source code...
How many hashes does it take to make 1 monero and what determines the hash rate in monero source code?
Thanks in advance for your comments.
The difficulty is determined by next_difficulty located here in the source code: https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/blob/master/src/cryptonote_core/difficulty.cppThe units of difficulty are hashes, which means at a difficulty of 600 million, you would need to search 600 million hashes on average to solve a block. (This is different from Bitcoin.) Each block has a variable reward but currently it is about 9.25 XMR, so 600 million hashes gets you about 9.25 XMR, or roughly 65 million hashes per XMR. The actual network hash rate is unmeasurable but it can be approximated by taking the current difficulty and dividing by the target, with is 60 seconds. So at 600 million difficulty the total hash rate of the network would be about 10 million. For reference GPUs generally hash at about 200-600 hash/sec and CPUs are about 50-60 hash/core/sec given sufficient cache. Thank you very much for you reply and detailed answer. Would like to understand more about the differences in the cryptonote code and monero code. When creating the monero genesis block was this achieved the same way as starting bit monero daemon on seed server with the same flags as cryptonote..for example bitmonerod --print-genesis-tx Then pasting printed hex in configuration file? src/cryptonote_config.h Example: const char GENESIS_COINBASE_TX_HEX[] "he string here"; I'm not sure we know how the genesis block was created. That's something thankful_for_today did, and he was pretty uncommunicative. We did create the genesis block for the testnet so someone from the project probably knows how that was done (not necessarily the same way as the main net genesis though), but I don't. |
|
|
|
without providing proof
You would ask secretive guys doing secretive things to provide proofs that could potentially compromise their anonymity? No, I would ask them to not make claims which they can't prove, for whatever reasons. Instead, simply say that it was 82% mined at public release, and leave it at that. In the interest of full and clear disclosure, they can put that right in the topic header: [ANN][BCN] Bytecoin, 82% mined before public releaseAnd stop claiming (repeatedly and conspicuously at every opportunity) that it was launched in 2012 (unless they are willing to prove it, which they aren't) and just STFU about everything that happened "in secret" that they can't or won't talk about before the public release. But that won't happen, because they want to actively and aggressively sell the (claimed) history as way to legitimize the premine and go out of their way to make it look like something other than 82% of the coins in their own pocket. |
|
|
|
you don.t like paying taxes to help the less fortunate in life  I don't like paying taxes to help the more fortunate. Change that statement to "I don't like paying taxes" You make your statements, I'll make mine. I said what I meant. |
|
|
|
I definitely think the next comment has to be true (that gox was net short) if the willy bot scenario is true https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fe92x/im_ashley_barr_aka_adam_turner_the_first_mtgox/ctor4f3It's basically this, which was very insightfully written at the time: Peter R’s Theory on the Collapse of Mt. Gox
TL/DR: A young man had a secret. To keep it hidden, he kept digging until the hole was a billion dollars deep. This is a speculative tale of a great bitcoin theft from MtGox in 2011 and the efforts that this man undertook to fix it. The tale explains the bitcoin bear market of 2011, the explosive rally of 2013, delayed fiat withdrawals, malled transactions, and a bot named Willy.
|
|
|
|
You cannot correctly say that it is a scam, but you always bloody well do. You are wrong about that. I say it is a premine scam, because it was 82% mined before being made public. No one even disputes this, including you. Obviously it wasn't public, it was secret.
As I understand it BCN has always stated it was mined by various secretive groups on the darknet before "going public". Why would I dispute it since it is the official BCN story? What you done at some point is translate "mined by groups on the darknet" to "premine scam". I find this curious. Again, there is no way to know that it actually was mined on the darknet or by whom. We do know it was 82% mined before being public, hence premined. If they simply said they kept 82% of the coins as a premine, that would be one thing. People could decide whether to buy or don't buy. I have no problem with that, although I would probably advise most to not buy. I might still call it a scam in the sense of being a bad investment, but I wouldn't call it fraudulent. However, in claiming, without providing proof, that it was actually mined by independent secretive groups instead of by the developers themselves, they are making a dangerous and unproven claim in support of their product. That is no different from claiming your snake oil cures cancer, without proving it. (But as you say, this does not prove that snake oil does not cure cancer. Either way, still a dangerous and deceptive claim.) Savvy and experienced crypto investors would know to be skeptical about these claims, to investigate carefully and be careful, but inexperienced and naive investors do not. That makes it a dangerous scam, and one people need to be warned about. Also, I forgot another false claim that has been made, making it a clear scam. They claimed involvement of Cicada 3301. I investigated that claim and determined it to be certainly and provably false. That is again attempting to sell their product on the basis of a false affiliation and/or endorsement. That makes it fraudulent and a scam. So what do u think of 1.0.6?
Answered above |
|
|
|
Isn't a private key way longer than an address?
This is probably wrong, but my though process:
No of bitcoin addresses = X^length
length = 32
x is no of characters. Since you have alphabet + capitals + numbers i would say X = 62.
It has to start with either a 1 or a 3 though, so 2 * 62^31, right?
The reason bitcoin addresses are short is they are hash of an ECC public key. In order to sign a transaction you have to provide with your signature, the full (longer) public key, which is first checked to hash to the address, before being used for verification. But Monero address aren't directly comparable to Bitcoin addresses in another way. There is an extra step in the handling of stealth addresses that uses the address (public key) to create a new one-time key pair each time it is used. Only the one-time public key goes on the blockchain, not the address itself. That's why it is said that payments are unlinkable: no one can tell by looking at the blockchain the address that was used. |
|
|
|
This was a very helpful graph in understanding bitcoin address basics. Does anyone know of anything like this for Monero addresses?
i don't remember seeing one, but maybe I'm just forgetting it. I agree it would be helpful. |
|
|
|
Does not pass the small test. Sorry.
I am not here, on BCT, to be judged or tested by you. You are entitled to your own opinions, obviously, but not to make unfounded assumptions without response, at least on the few unmoderated threads that exist in the Alt section. Still, I'd like to know How would you even know if what i say about BCN is correct or not?Having no involvement, that is? |
|
|
|
*unless you have access to all available data which nobody in this instance does since the origins of BCN do not reside on the Internet but rather the Darknet.
Exactly. You don't have access to all available data, so you can't correctly say that it isn't a scam. The farthest you could go is that it might not be a scam (and that's a long shot). Ahhh quite so… and you cannot correctly say that it is a scam, but you always bloody well do. In this situation the absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence (black swan). There are aspects of it which certainly are a scam, such as the fake trading (which I've investigated and verified for myself), or the premine, which exists by definition since the mining occurred before it was made public. That does not prove every aspect of the prevailing theories on the backstory, as I have acknowledged before, but it does prove at least some element of a scam, and enough for responsible people to want to warn away all but the most careful expert traders who might still be able to make money on the short term market action. As for the backstory, I and nearly every impartial intelligent observer has concluded that the theory of fabrication is more likely that the theory of a conspiracy of silence on the darknet (and beyond) that very experienced darknet users and experts have never heard of. Still I would acknowledge and agree that more likely, even far more likely, is not 100% certainty. Yes and I repeat: You cannot correctly say that it is a scam, but you always bloody well do.You are wrong about that. I say it is a premine scam, because it was 82% mined before being made public. No one even disputes this, including you. Obviously it wasn't public, it was secret. I also say that fake trading ( which as I said above I have investigated and confirmed myself) makes it a scam. The rest of the claims of fabrication and fraud I consider (and many other intelligent, informed, and impartial observers consider) proven by a preponderance of the evidence. But yes, not 100% certain. I agree. Perhaps someday somebody will spot the black swan even though great lengths have gone to concealing it. Until such time accusations of scam are incorrect, dogmatic and disrespectful to the innovations of CN and BCN.
Accusations are not incorrect, they are accusations. Claims of demonstrated scamminess are just that. Reasonable conclusions reached based on a preponderance of the evidence are also just that. No one disrespects the innovations, if we did we wouldn't be using them! |
|
|
|
Why having two types of tx instead of one ?
Look at monero blockchain size. The private tx are way bigger than the public one
By keeping the two types of tx, you can avoid to surcharge the blockchain with private ones when they are not needed.
You can also imagine a lot of applications using that possibility of having both private and public tx.
Monero blockchain size might become a huge problem if it become really successful
I'm not sure about this. The cryptonote protocol allows both mixed and unmixed transactions, and unmixed transactions are smaller than Bitcoin-style transactions. That is by design and is discussed in section 2.5 of the cryptonote white paper. Furthermore, many, perhaps most, of the transactions on the Monero blockchain are unmixed (though we do expect this to change in the future). I think the reason the Monero blockchain is larger is just more usage (from being a higher profile coin that has been traded more actively on exchanges for a longer period of time). Take a look for yourself. You can scroll pages and pages at http://explorer.shadow.cash and see hardly any non-empty blocks. Looking at http://chainradar.com/xmr/blocks, there are only about 30% empty blocks on Monero. Both coins have the same one-minute block time so this is a valid comparison. Another contributing factor to the Monero chain size was a temporary bug in the pool implementation (which at the time was brand new -- we sponsored its development) that created a lot of extra transactions on the Monero chain for the first few months. It is annoying that made the chain bigger, but it isn't ongoing growth, so it doesn't present a concern for the future. Chain size is a concern for every coin. Just look at the current debate over raising Bitcoin's block size. Allowing the chain to grow too much is a huge issue. |
|
|
|
any comments on 1.0.6?
The proposal to use multiple spend keys with a single view key is a legitimate addition to the protocol. But it isn't a huge innovation, and doesn't really suggest a level of insight or expertise in line with the original crypotnote protocol development. With this new scheme, there is no change at all on the blockchain (only in wallets, and even there only on the receiving side, not sending) and indeed one of the Monero developers who has been working on wallets said he had already noticed that could be done (but he didn't publish it afaik, and the BCN team did, so they get fair credit and he doesn't). There are some disadvantages to it, since it requires more care in key management than the single key plus payment ID does to avoid loss of funds. So I'm not really sure the suggestion to deprecate the payment ID is such a great idea. Nevertheless the new approach is certainly useful in some use cases and worthwhile to implement. |
|
|
|
*unless you have access to all available data which nobody in this instance does since the origins of BCN do not reside on the Internet but rather the Darknet.
Exactly. You don't have access to all available data, so you can't correctly say that it isn't a scam. The farthest you could go is that it might not be a scam (and that's a long shot). Ahhh quite so… and you cannot correctly say that it is a scam, but you always bloody well do. In this situation the absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence (black swan). There are aspects of it which certainly are a scam, such as the fake trading (which I've investigated and verified for myself), or the premine, which exists by definition since the mining occurred before it was made public. That does not prove every aspect of the prevailing theories on the backstory, as I have acknowledged before, but it does prove at least some element of a scam, and enough for responsible people to want to warn away all but the most careful expert traders who might still be able to make money on the short term market action. As for the backstory, I and nearly every impartial intelligent observer has concluded that the theory of fabrication is more likely that the theory of a conspiracy of silence on the darknet (and beyond) that very experienced darknet users and experts have never heard of. Still I would acknowledge and agree that more likely, even far more likely, is not 100% certainty. |
|
|
|
^ 100% signed. i guess possible/future investors might have a problem that zoidberg has more then bbr as a project. sure cryptonote with pos will be a technical advantage, but it still kinda leaves a bad taste that the main dev is working on a different project, which is not just a side thing. but i could also be the only thinking that way - becoming paranoid i guess  There is nothing "paranoid" about the project having been all but abandoned for around six months or so. That's observation. Maybe that is acceptable though, if the technology is considered sufficient to succeed more or less the way it is. Ongoing development might not be needed, or it might be needed only in the future (and that might happen), but not now. |
|
|
|
The absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence*.
Just because a black swan has never been sighted does not mean to say one does not exist.
Just because a crime scene has no fingerprints it does not mean to say the crime was committed by a man with no fingers.
The BCN Team have better reason than anybody else in crypto today to remain secretive and it is completely fitting that there should be no evidence whatsoever.
There are search engines on the darknet. There are people involved in cryptocurrency (and I don't mean BCN) who have been involved in the Darknet probably longer than you even knew it existed. None of them have ever heard of it. There are claims that it was used as a major transactional currency at an international research institution. Such entities do not conduct their business on the darknet, so if this actually happened there would be accessible evidence of it. None of that happened. Finally, you say "The BCN Team" have reasons to remain secretive. In stating that you suggest a premine since if only "The BCN Team" were involved, that's a premine by definition. If others were involved and had mined, traded, and invested in the coin, then some evidence of that would exist. To suggest otherwise is to claim the existence a large, successful, conspiracy of secrecy, outside The BCN Team (and against the interests of the those alleged outside investors I might add) to keep all evidence of the alleged existence a secret. That is implausible. All of this adds up to one thing and you know very well what it is. In other words, Bytecoin is not a scam.
Even if you doubt the reasonable evidence and arguments that convince most intelligent reasonable people who look at it, you certainly don't know that it ins't a scam. How could you? *unless you have access to all available data which nobody in this instance does since the origins of BCN do not reside on the Internet but rather the Darknet.
Exactly. You don't have access to all available data, so you can't correctly say that it isn't a scam. The farthest you could go is that it might not be a scam (and that's a long shot). |
|
|
|
Just in case there's someone who doesn't already know - Bytecoin was mined 82% before it was publicly announced. When the insiders hold 82% of the coin there's ever gonna be it's pretty easy to pump it. And about Bytecoin being anonymous: Doesn't count as anonymous because 80%+ of the utxoset is owned by entities who mined them before it became public and global, which means that those entities can deanonymise pretty much all future transactions.
Marketcap is irrelevant as it's easily inflated (doubly so when all you have to do is slightly bump the price due to the massive amount that's already emitted).
Those coins mined early have all been sold and redistributed already ... it's the same as the 2 million Dash, no worries at all, clear sailing. It is impossible to know -- in both cases -- how the coins were or weren't redistributed, especially if we believe the anonymity works, so this is a baseless claim. coin is 3 years old and dumped heavy early on The claim of it being 3 years old is as phony as a three dollar bill and even if it weren't there was no certainly established market "early" and the coins couldn't have been "dumped heavy" on nonexistent markets. If you are making all these bogus statements, you clearly have an agenda. What is it? |
|
|
|
I know this is a repeat question, but it is frustrating that I can't find an easy Google answer to it.
How many Monero addresses are possible vs. bitcoin? Bitcoin has 2^160 possible private keys, right? How many does Monero have (I would assume more because the Monero addresses I see are much longer). 2^???
The full keys (spend + view) are 512 bits long. With a deterministic wallet the view key is a hash of the spend key so only the spend key is undetermined -- 256 bits. The short mnemonic versions use a 128 bits seed. Any of these is sufficiently secure for practical purposes. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
